Ved Parkash Paliwal (HUF),, Panipat v. ACIT, Panipat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH FRIDAY-G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI B.C. MEENA MISCELLANEOUS APP. NO.126/2011 (IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 557/DEL/2011) ( IN I.T.A. NO. 3418/DEL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 SHRI VED PRAKASH PALIWAL (HUF) VS. ASSISTANT CIT PALIWAL NAGAR PANIPAT CIRCLE PANIPAT (HARYANA) PANIPAT (PAN: AABHV2132D) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: SHRI PRADEEP TAYAL CA RESPONDENT BY: SMT. S. MOHANTHY DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.12.2011 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DIRECTED A T THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT PASSED IN MA NO. 557/DEL/2008 IN ITA NO.3418/DEL/2005. THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE TAKING US THROUGH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION POINTED OUT THAT EARLIER ASSESSEE HAS FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION NO.557/DEL/2008 WHERE HE CONTENDED THAT INTEREST UNDER SEC. 244A OF THE ACT HAS TO BE PAID TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF SELF ASSES SMENT TAX TILL THE REFUND IS GRANTED. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS ALLOWED BY THE ITAT AND THE ITAT HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED T O INTEREST FROM 31 ST JULY 2002 UP TO 31.07.2003 ALSO. IN OTHER WORDS ACCORDI NG TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL 2 FOR THE ASSESSEE ITAT HAS GRANTED THE INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PAYMENT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX TILL THE REFUND IS G RANTED INCLUDING THE PERIOD OF 31.07.2002 UPTO 31.7.2003. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER AND ASSESSING OFFICER I S NOT GRANTING HIM THE INTEREST ON INTEREST ON THE REFUND. 2. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT PA SSED IN M.A. NO.557/DEL/2008. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. THE ITAT IS NOT TH E EXECUTING AUTHORITY. IF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT THEN THE REMEDY OF THE ASSESSEE LIES SOMEWHERE ELSE. HE CAN APPROACH ANY SUCH FORM IF SO ADVISED. UNDER SEC. 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ITAT CAN RECTIFY ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY IT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY SUCH MISTAKE. THEREFORE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. IT I S REJECTED. OUR OBSERVATIONS WILL NOT IMPAIR OR INJURE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR WILL NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE STAND OF THE AS SESSEE. THIS M.A. IS SIMPLY DISMISSED BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER DATED: 02/12/2011 MOHAN LAL 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR